Asif Fazlani vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 17211 P&H

CRM-M-58940-2022                                                      -1-

133    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-58940-2022
                                        Date of Decision:19.12.2022

ASIF FAZLANI                                              ......... Petitioner
                                    Versus
STATE OF HARYANA                                          ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :
       Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate
       for the petitioner.
              ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

Through instant petition under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is seeking setting aside of order

dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) whereby Additional Sessions Judge,

Faridabad, in Sessions Case SC/750/2019 titled "State of Haryana Vs.

Nitish Taneja and others" under Sections 27(b) (ii) and 28 of Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940 has rejected application seeking exemption from

appearance and further cancelled bail bonds of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that

petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing of tobacco

products. The respondent filed complaint before Magistrate which came

to be committed to Sessions Court. The petitioner was summoned vide

order dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner is regularly

appearing before Trial Court and facing mental agony since 2013. The

petitioner is staying at Mumbai and it is very difficult to join proceedings

at Faridabad. On account of health reasons, the petitioner sought

exemption which came to be rejected. Learned Sessions Court apart from

rejecting request for exemption has cancelled bail bonds of the

1 of 3

petitioner. It is a complaint case and petitioner is director of a

manufacturing concern so there is no possibility of flee from justice. The

petitioner is not involved in any other case except these cases under

Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. The petitioner is ready and willing to

appear before the Trial Court and undertakes to appear on each and every

date. The petitioner further undertakes to pay costs of Rs.50,000/-.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of Court, Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana

accepts notice on behalf of the State. She does not dispute the above

stated factual position. She has no objection, if petition is disposed of

subject to costs.

Intent of arrest and reason of denial of bail is to secure the

appearance of the accused at the time of trial. A person who seeks to be

liberated must take judgment and serve sentence in the event of his

conviction. The nature of the crime charged, severity of punishment

prescribed, prime facie available evidences, history & background of the

accused may indicate that any amount of bond and surety is not going to

secure presence of accused, at the time of conviction.

Keeping in mind:

i) The object of cancellation of bond or declaration of anyone

as proclaimed offender/person is to secure his presence. The

petitioner has come forward to face trial and undertakes to

appear before trial court on each and every date, thus ,his

presence would meet ends of justice;

ii) The Petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of

courts as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs.

2 of 3

50,000/-

iii) The Petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the

satisfaction of the trial court;

iv) The petitioner is a director of a manufacturing Company and

trial in question is a complaint case.

v) Trial is pending since 2013 and petitioner is ready to face

trial, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to prosecution or

complainant;

this court is of the considered opinion that present petition needs

to be allowed, and accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is

directed to appear before learned Trial Court on or before 15.02.2023

and on his doing so, the Trial Court shall admit him to bail on furnishing

fresh bail bonds alongwith costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the PGI

Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh.

Before parting with this order, I would hasten to add that

trial is pending since 2013 and it is a complaint case. Learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Faridabad is requested to expedite the trial and

preferably conclude within 6 months from the date of appearance of the

petitioner.

Disposed of in above terms.

                                                      ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                             JUDGE
19.12.2022
Ali
                         Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No
                              Whether Reportable      Yes/No




                                        3 of 3